.





















































































































































































































































































.

Another reviewer commented that the court ignored the possible effects of their holding on out-of-print works. I disagree.

The case was about 127 specfic works, as stated several times in the opinion. The ruling can only be applied to other works if someone brings a justiciable issue regarding such works before a court of law and said court uses this holding as precedent.

One threshold issue in any legal case is standing. There are unlikely to be persons with standing to defend copyright for out-of-print (or public domain works.

The conclusions made seem appropriate, but they are leaving out the fact that out-of-print books and second-hand books may be loaned out by anyone to anyone without violating copyright law or infringing on the income of the publisher. Once someone owns a work, they own that physical example and may do with it as they please, short of copying it and distributing it. Loaning out at a 1:1 ratio hardly impedes any publisher's ability to make money off a volume, especially one that is out of print and otherwise unavailable. If anything, it may spur a publisher to ask for loan data and consider republishing a work. It would be in the best interest of the publishers to collaborate and support IA rather than tilt at a windmill.